[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   H.R. 4603: FISCAL YEAR 1995 COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE APPROPRIATIONS

                                 ______


                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 28, 1994

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position on the Federal 
Government's responsibility to reimburse States for the costs of 
incarcerating undocumented felons.
  Reimbursement to States for undocumented felon incarceration is an 
obligation which I strongly support. However, I opposed the amendments 
that my colleagues, Mr. Condit and Mr. Rogers, offered as mechanisms 
for paying for these expenses because these proposals were neither 
reasonable nor realistic.
  The first amendment, offered by Mr. Condit, would have financed these 
costs through an across-the-board cut to all programs in this 
appropriations bill. I did not support this amendment because it would 
have sacrificed drug enforcement agents, prison construction funds, the 
Border Patrol, community policing and the Byrne Program--a key element 
in California's fight against crime--to get up an entitlement program 
to pay for felons who are here, in this country, illegally, in jail.
  Earlier this year, a delegation of law enforcement representatives 
from my congressional district was here in Washington attending the 
White House briefing on the crime bill. Immediately following the 
briefing, these representatives joined me in a private meeting with 
Attorney General Janet Reno and advised her of their concerns about the 
pending legislation. At the top of their list was their apprehension 
about losing their Byrne formula grant funding--funding which had been 
eliminated from the administration's anticrime proposal. Without Byrne 
formula grants, Glenn, Colusa and Yolo Counties would have to do away 
with their narcotics task forces, leaving these communities wide open 
to drugs and the violence that accompanies this persistent problem.
  In response to this input I, along with my colleague from Michigan, 
Mr. Stupak, introduced an amendment which was included in the House 
anticrime initiative as part of the chairman's en bloc amendment. This 
sense-of-Congress amendment stressed that Congress must maintain its 
support for the Byrne component of the anticrime effort. Due to this 
and similar efforts by other Members of the House, Chairman Mollohan 
and the appropriations subcommittee provided a substantial increase in 
Byrne Program funding for the new fiscal year.
  The subcommittee also, for the first time, provided funds to 
reimburse States for the costs of incarcerating undocumented felons by 
allowing States to use their sizeable increases in Byrne funding at 
their discretion--for anti-drug-abuse strategies, to upgrade their 
criminal history records, and for the costs associated with 
incarcerating undocumented felons. Although the subcommittee was not 
able to provide full and separate funding for the undocumented felon 
program, pumping substantial increases into the expanded, flexible 
Byrne Program gives California--traditionally the largest recipient of 
Byrne funds--$85 million of the $804 million in Byrne dollars 
appropriated for next year.

  The second amendment, offered by Mr. Rogers, cut our U.N. 
peacekeeping dues in order to fund the undocumented felon program. I 
opposed this alternative because I realize how critical our investment 
in U.N. peacekeeping is. Peacekeeping is not charity. It is directly 
related to maintaining our national security and upholding our 
political and economic interests.
  Our Nation cannot afford to act alone in the world's trouble spots, 
particularly with our defense budget shrinking. It is also not in our 
best financial interests to do so. The money that we invest in U.N. 
peacekeeping operations enables us to get our allies to send their 
troops into troubled areas, reducing the need for American forces and 
decreasing the pressure on our defense budget. To the extent that we 
fail to fund peacekeeping, we must fund peacemaking--our defense budget 
has to pick up the slack. Our peacekeeping dues therefore protect the 
billions of dollars that American taxpayers have already invested in 
our cold war victory.
  Over 80 percent of the money requested in this bill for peacekeeping 
operations was obligated by President Clinton's predecessors. If we 
renege on these commitments, we will violate our treaty obligations and 
give other nations an excuse to do likewise. As Chairman Obey pointed 
out last night, it is not in our financial interest for us to default 
on these debts. We can either pay now, or we can pay later. And if we 
pay later, as the peacekeeper of last resort, the price will be 
significantly higher. Once we have to resort to military action, the 
costs are overwhelming.
  Having served in the California State Legislature prior to coming to 
Congress, I am extremely sensitive to our financial problems. 
Reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating undocumented felons is 
critical to California, since we are affected by these costs to a 
greater extent than any other State. However, I am also aware that our 
Governor has balanced his budget based on unrealistic assumptions of 
Federal aid for undocumented felons.
  As my colleague from California, Mr. Dixon, pointed out in his 
colloquy with Chairman Mollohan, the subcommittee has taken an 
important first step toward full reimbursement of these authorized, but 
previously unfunded, expenses by providing some measure of assistance 
to those States that are burdened with the responsibility for our 
Nation's undocumented felons.

  California's $85 million share of the expanded Byrne program 
represents an increase of $47 million--or 125 percent--over this year's 
funding. And, if the crime bill conferees are able to agree on some 
level of isolated funding that is specifically targeted toward the 
undocumented felon program, this figure would increase. Although I 
realize that full reimbursement for this program may not be likely 
during this funding cycle, I remain optimistic that, as we continue to 
work toward providing some significant measure of relief for affected 
States, we will ultimately achieve full reimbursement for these costs.

                          ____________________